Thread closed?
- Thread starter TIGER
- Start date
rustycage
Well-known member
@cktiger said in [Thread closed?](/post/1068660) said:
I guess reasonability plays a big part.
@cktiger said in [Thread closed?](/post/1068660) said:
Again, scientists don't claim to know how life was created, in fact most of them are very vocal in that they do not know yet how abiogenesis occurred. Some experiments have been carried out to prove that amino acids could be created in conditions similar to a primordial Earth. It'll take time but it will be figured out. It only took 60 odd years to figure out how to fly mechanically to landing men on the moon, we're a curious and clever bunch.
There is no tangible evidence of God. Statements like that the eye is far too complex an organ to have naturally occurred is not proof of a God. Apart from arguments like that and Jesus popping up on your toast there's not much out there. The divine has historically always filled the void for whatever was not, or poorly, understood. We've come a long way from believing the Earth was flat to where we are now, the more we learn about our environment and the universe, the smaller the void that theology has to fill.
Do we know all the answers? No, but once upon a time people were for sure and for certain the sun revolved around the Earth.
If it turns out there is tangible evidence for a creator then I'll get behind it. Faith alone will not do it for me.
rustycage
Well-known member
@Russell said in [Thread closed?](/post/1068691) said:
Not Milky again?
fair dinkum
New member
@cktiger said in [Thread closed?](/post/1068660) said:
“… Science is constantly proved all the time. You see, if we take something like any fiction, any holy book… and destroyed it, in a thousand years’ time, that wouldn’t come back just as it was. Whereas if we took every science book, and every fact, and destroyed them all, in a thousand years they’d all be back, because all the same tests would [produce] the same result.”
― Ricky Gervais
@fair-dinkum I think Gervais is hilarious, but i generally don't usually find his ideas on religion very insightful at all.
Science evolves all the time, and there is a large chance that what we think we know today about nature today, will not be the accepted science in a hundred or a thousand year's time. Look at the Flat Earth theory, Heliocentrism, current criticism of Darwin's theory of Evolution, the Big Bang, Medical science ... it all changes constantly and rapidly. So he's lost me on that one.
Now regarding the Bible, whether you believe it or not, it was put together as a historical document to pass onto future generations things that had occurred in specific locations at specific points in time. We know Jesus was born under the reign of the Augustus Caesar , he lived and taught certain things centered in modern day Israel, and was executed at the time of Tiberius Ceasar. If we burn the Bible, does that make these historical events untrue ?
Using an analogy, if we burned all books about WW1, would that mean that it never happened? Or if we shred evidence of The Twin Towers being destroyed, would that mean the original event did not happen?
Ricky should stick to being funny. He's good at that, but he isn't much of a philosopher it seems.
Science evolves all the time, and there is a large chance that what we think we know today about nature today, will not be the accepted science in a hundred or a thousand year's time. Look at the Flat Earth theory, Heliocentrism, current criticism of Darwin's theory of Evolution, the Big Bang, Medical science ... it all changes constantly and rapidly. So he's lost me on that one.
Now regarding the Bible, whether you believe it or not, it was put together as a historical document to pass onto future generations things that had occurred in specific locations at specific points in time. We know Jesus was born under the reign of the Augustus Caesar , he lived and taught certain things centered in modern day Israel, and was executed at the time of Tiberius Ceasar. If we burn the Bible, does that make these historical events untrue ?
Using an analogy, if we burned all books about WW1, would that mean that it never happened? Or if we shred evidence of The Twin Towers being destroyed, would that mean the original event did not happen?
Ricky should stick to being funny. He's good at that, but he isn't much of a philosopher it seems.
@Abraham said in [Thread closed?](/post/1068717) said:
Something that can be measured in line with the scientific method. As I said, speculative arguments on the formation of complex organs and apparitions in ones breakfast don't do it for me.
I cannot definitively disprove a God, there's a significant amount we don't know about our universe that lends to the opinion/thought that there might be intelligent design.
I certainly don't believe there to be a God in the classic anthropomorphic sense that concerns themselves with the everyday banality of human life. But a Pantheistic God that could be the the sum of all the parts of the universe, or a Panentheistic God that is the designer of said? We don't know enough to suggest that this is definitely not the case.
@Abraham said in [Thread closed?](/post/1068715) said:
Most of science is not likely to change, as time passes the amount that goes from theory to fact gets larger as we understand more about the universe. We would be a lot further advanced if it wasn't for those pesky dark ages caused by a religious organisation.
If you or your family get sick do you accept medical science is good enough at this point in time or do you rely solely on prayer?
Historical documents are usually biased and can be completely fabricated, the winner (or long standing organisations) writes history and often destroys alternative viewpoints so theirs is the only source of truth.
@Cultured_Bogan Ok fair enough.
You mentioned you would believe in God if He could be measured in line with the scientific method. Practically speaking though, how does that manifest into something tangible?
So for example, does God need to personally make a physical appearance in front of every person for the rest of eternity? Or does God need to be permanently visible in the sky where we can all see Him at any given moment?
My personal opinion of why God doesn't actually do this, is that we would then be compelled to worship Him out of fear, rather than as an act of love from our own free-will.
You mentioned you would believe in God if He could be measured in line with the scientific method. Practically speaking though, how does that manifest into something tangible?
So for example, does God need to personally make a physical appearance in front of every person for the rest of eternity? Or does God need to be permanently visible in the sky where we can all see Him at any given moment?
My personal opinion of why God doesn't actually do this, is that we would then be compelled to worship Him out of fear, rather than as an act of love from our own free-will.
fair dinkum
New member
@Abraham said in [Thread closed?](/post/1068730) said:
Your Omnipotent, Omniscient, Omnipresent God should know exactly what it would take to make CB believe he is real. Maybe you should pray for your God to reveal himself to CB.
See how that works out for ya.
4jtigers
Well-known member
this is quite unbelievable - this thread is still not closed? - I thought it was going to be closed ALREADY lol
T
tigerbalm
Guest
@Abraham said in [Thread closed?](/post/1068715) said:
Yup, you completely missed what Gervais was implying. Your analogy proved that.
rustycage
Well-known member
Proving the existence of God...any God, is probably more likely than the roosters being pinged for cap breaching, Greenberg being found out to be fair and reasonable and us getting more favourable 50/50 calls than not.
fair dinkum
New member
@Abraham said in [Thread closed?](/post/1068715) said:
*Science evolves all the time, and there is a large chance that what we think we know today about nature today, will not be the accepted science in a hundred or a thousand year's time. Look at the Flat Earth theory, Heliocentrism, current criticism of Darwin's theory of Evolution, the Big Bang, Medical science ... it all changes constantly and rapidly. So he's lost me on that one.*
This is an extremely weak understanding of the way scientific theory operates and I strongly suggest you do a great amount of research into the subject before you try and debate it again, it weakens every claim you make. Science is ever evolving, thats the point, the quest for truth. Science is the best method we have for determining the truth at that given time. We now know the cause of lightning, turns out it wasnt Zues and his thunder bolts, we now know the reason for volcanic eruptions and it wasnt the giant Jui Jui monster that lived on the hill. Science evolves with our understanding of the world around us. Science isnt settled. It is ok to say, we dont know, it is ok to challenge a scientific theory and try to prove it wrong, if you do youll be lauded in the scientific community. What you dont get to do is to insert, you dont know, so a God did it.
*Now regarding the Bible, whether you believe it or not, it was put together as a historical document to pass onto future generations things that had occurred in specific locations at specific points in time. We know Jesus was born under the reign of the Augustus Caesar , he lived and taught certain things centered in modern day Israel, and was executed at the time of Tiberius Ceasar. If we burn the Bible, does that make these historical events untrue ?*
It wasnt put to together as a historical document, the man made bible was constructed as religious doctrine over a millennia some scholars argue starting from the First Council of Nicaea in AD325 and pending which denomination you believe in all the way up the Council of Trent in AD1545. Besides that, nothing you said proves the existence of Jesus or your god and it is far from settled that the character Jesus ever existed and if i did grant you that Jesus existed it is far from settled that he was a super natural being. So by your logic that something existed in history whilst i claim something else existed absent of evidence is like me saying - I wrote a story in year 6 about a dragon that lived in my backyard. I can show i did have a backyard, i can show you this story is written down, therefore a dragon exists.
*Using an analogy, if we burned all books about WW1, would that mean that it never happened? Or if we shred evidence of The Twin Towers being destroyed, would that mean the original event did not happen?
Ricky should stick to being funny. He's good at that, but he isn't much of a philosopher it seems.*
I dont think ive ever read anything so off topic and on a wayward tangent than that. Im sorry you cant understand something that is so plainly written. You're completely missing the point. What Gervais is brilliantly stating is that if we completely forgot about Christianity and science, one of those would be back and the other would be a set of different fables. If bibles, churches, people's memories of it all vanished, then Christianity would never come back as it was. On the other hand with science, it would come back. If science books, universities, people's memories of science were all lost, science would still come back. The quest for knowledge will eventually find the same facts. The speed of light won't change. Neither will the electron charge. Gravity would be rediscovered. 2 + 2 would still equal 4. Your talking snake and 40 day flood may not make the cut in the next fairytale man makes up to brainwash the masses.
